High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 08 TP CK 0018

Subhas Paul vs State Of Tripura & Others

Tripura High Court · Decided on 27 August 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arindam Lodh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) 280 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 356 words

Arindam Lodh, J

1.

By means of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to upgrade his service status from Part Time Worker (PTW) to Daily Rated Worker (DRW) with financial benefits.

2.

I have heard Mr. Arjun Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Karnajit De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.

3.

I have also perused the records. From a Note dated 12th August, 2009, it appears that the petitioner was engaged by a ‘Sabhadhipati’, Uttar Tripura Zilla Parishad, Kailashahar, North Tripura. Later on, by different correspondences, the remuneration of the petitioner was sanctioned by the Finance Department of the State. The petitioner has submitted several representations for up-gradation of his service status from PTW to DRW. It is stated in the writ petition that he was expecting that his service status from PTW to DRW would be upgraded, but, ultimately he found that his service status would not be upgraded compelling him to file the instant writ petition before this Court.

4.

After consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, in my opinion, the petitioner was engaged by the ‘Zilla Sabhadhipati’ on her personal capacity as well as her own choice and whims. It is one kind of private contract. In view of this, in my considered view, the petitioner does not hold any civil post. As such he has no locus to invite the discretionary and extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere i.e. he may approach the Civil Court for performance of the contract which he had with the said ‘Zilla Sabhadhipati’. The State is not in any way involved with such engagement of the petitioner.

5.

In the light of above and as I have already held that the petitioner does not hold any civil post, this Court refrains itself from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.